Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
25:16
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Kathy Kleiman
25:19
I have something for AOB.
Julie Hedlund
26:22
Noted
Emily Barabas
27:30
Here is the link to the document on display: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZzjHw/edit#heading=h.vggepvpizwpy
Paul McGrady
29:22
Guardrails submitted weeks ago
christopher wilkinson
30:43
@Paul - what is your definition of ‘guardrail’ - -?
Paul McGrady
33:55
@Jeff - don't see my proposal in this latest document. What happened?
Ken Stubbs
38:00
np
Paul McGrady
39:15
@Jeff - the Board didn't say a peep about concerns over JVs. They did raise private auctions. We are out over our skis if we are going to make people disclose business plans inherent in a JV.
Alexander Schubert
43:02
TLD has to be in the root within 2 years anyways. How is this new?
Julie Bisland
43:12
Ken seems to have dropped off
Donna Austin, Neustar
43:17
it looks like Ken may have dropped off
Alexander Schubert
44:04
And if you have cool strings - and strong opponents: you might lose all of them. There is nothing you can do about it.....
Marc Trachtenberg
44:23
What happens if there is the rebuttable presumption of Non-good faith intent? What is the effect?
Jeffrey Neuman
44:49
@Marc - that is one of the questions for discussion
Elaine Pruis
45:07
@Paul - JV arrangement could be “partners until the TLD launches, and then all but one are “bought out” by a sole owner. Too easily gamed.
Alexander Schubert
45:10
Real "use" would be launching the startup phases that you propose in your application; e.g. sunrise
Justine Chew
45:10
@Marc, that's under "Outstanding Discussion Items"
Donna Austin, Neustar
45:45
Christopher does raise a good point about the cost of implication in time and resources.
Alexander Schubert
45:59
if you don't have a sunrise - you are likely a brand Spec 13 and won't have contention anyways.
Jim Prendergast
46:38
any costs would be rolled into application fee so ICANN would recoup.
Marc Trachtenberg
46:40
@Jeff and Justine - I get that but think its difficult to know if the criteria for this determination are "right" without discussing the effect
Alexander Schubert
47:40
And the 10% ownership: what if nobody owns more than 9.9%? Then no owner needs to be disclosed?
Paul McGrady
48:45
Need to add that explicitly. Thanks!
Paul McGrady
48:53
Not obvious to me.
Alexander Schubert
49:29
We should revert this: if in an applicant entity more than 2/3 of ownership are less than 10% each: then ALL owners have to be disclosed!
Phil Buckingham
54:01
so the evaluations will go ahead BEFORE the contention set resolutions along the applicants critical path ??
Elaine Pruis
54:59
Sealed bids should be submitted for private and ICANN auctions, at the same time.
Susan.Payne
55:24
right - let's exclude everyone in this wg then
Elaine Pruis
55:26
Single point in time so that applicants have to be very thoughtful about the value of the bid
Martin Sutton
55:26
I think Paul is compromising to try and make this work. In response to CW comment…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
55:55
indeed @Martin and I look forward to hearing from @Jim now
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
56:20
and of course @Alexander all as we continue to discuss and refine
Elaine Pruis
56:25
@Jim see my comments from above!
Paul McGrady
57:05
Thanks Martin. Yes, just trying to get us to a compromise we can all live with.
Paul McGrady
58:08
Sealed bids and aggressive time frames don't take into account outcomes from Objections, GAC Early Warning, Public Comments, etc. so they don't make sense in the context of private auctions.
Justine Chew
59:11
A tidying up comment: any reference to appeals holding up either auctions should include challenges - since we are using challenges against evaluations and appeals against objections / COI allegations.
Paul McGrady
59:47
Good question. Are those the same as in the Application? Is that information public? Why wouldn't we just put through an Application change?
Elaine Pruis
01:00:14
Why not list everyone?
Paul McGrady
01:00:52
@Elaine - do applicants list everyone in the application? I can't remember what the percentages of ownership are.
Elaine Pruis
01:01:33
@Paul, why not?
Elaine Pruis
01:02:07
(Not, why can’t you remember, but why not list everyone? What does it matter?)
Paul McGrady
01:02:41
2012 AGB says 15%. Why 10%
Jeffrey Neuman
01:03:37
10% is a standard used by regulatory agencies in the US, and some other countries
Jeffrey Neuman
01:03:59
But I don't see a huge difference between 10 and 15%
Paul McGrady
01:04:10
Why a different standard for these kinds of applicants? Why are creating a second class applicant?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:04:10
So if the group wants to use 15, that's fine
Jim Prendergast
01:04:23
The bids can be submitted at the same time. reveal could happen at staggered times
Jim Prendergast
01:04:33
but I will address in writng
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:50
to garb=ner general support
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:55
garner
Alexander Schubert
01:04:58
we could have auction BATCHES!
Phil Buckingham
01:05:01
idea : do the private sealed bid auctions first , before doing the evaluations . as a result there would be a huge saving of monies and time . this would work for the vast majority of contention sets .
Susan.Payne
01:06:04
@Phil, and what happens when the winner get's kicked out?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:07:35
@Phil, that doesn't seem particularly fair given there are a number of hoops applicants have to go through.
Martin Sutton
01:07:40
Agree Jeff - this is a moving target to try and find some middle ground between the ideas proposed and discussed along the way
Jim Prendergast
01:08:33
yes
Paul McGrady
01:08:54
@Phil - sealed bids before Evaluation, Objections, GAC Early Warning, Public Comment, etc. are premature. Members of contention sets can be eliminated by any number of items and that affects not only auction prices but whether or not there even needs to be an auction.
Jim Prendergast
01:09:15
I will look into that and let you know
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:40
Thanks @Jim/Elaine
Elaine Pruis
01:11:04
Pick your favorite Paul. Just need some oversight
Susan.Payne
01:11:28
you're kidding, it's being proposed we have to
Susan.Payne
01:12:05
go and get permission for competition authorities? is that every applicant who resolves contention? why/ isn't that their risk?
Jim Prendergast
01:12:20
Thanks for the feedback. Will consider it and respond.
Elaine Pruis
01:12:21
thanks Paul
christopher wilkinson
01:12:36
@Elaine - +Paul: the reference to Competition authorities seems only valid in the US, not for the rest of the world. That is why when the EU agreed to the creation of ICANN, it was on the basis of ICANN ITSELF functioning as the global competition regulator for this sector.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:13:00
Your OK re Chat @Jeff
Paul McGrady
01:14:00
@Jeff - maybe when we have this in numbered paragraphs instead of bullet points, that will help
Paul McGrady
01:14:18
See we could say "except as required in paragraph X"
Paul McGrady
01:15:22
@Jeff - for clarity, we are talking only about sealed bids in the context of auctions of last resort, correct?
Paul McGrady
01:16:44
Estimate the value of the TLD up front ,deposit a lot of money, and then make everyone pay to go through the Objections etc. Sealed bids front load a lot of expense for applicants, especially new market entrants.
Alexander Schubert
01:16:45
Deposit only once the auction of last resort commences. Like in 2012.
Paul McGrady
01:17:01
+1 Alexander
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:17:44
Agree Alexander
Susan.Payne
01:17:47
agree Alexander
Phil Buckingham
01:17:49
agreed Alexander
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:01
Noted....
Paul McGrady
01:18:48
So the modified JV applicant doesn't inherent the prior sealed bid for that application #?
Elaine Pruis
01:19:47
NDA at initial bid
Jim Prendergast
01:19:53
I agree with Donna. Suggest exploring Pauls inheritng.
Phil Buckingham
01:20:16
definitely a leg up . agree Donna
Justine Chew
01:20:20
Really? Please clarify.
Paul McGrady
01:20:39
A fresh sealed bid for everyone or an inherited seal bids seems more fair
Paul McGrady
01:21:20
I like fresh for everyone
Justine Chew
01:21:21
How does multiplier / bid credit feature in all of this?
Susan.Payne
01:21:27
But doesn't forcing the inherited sealed bid disadvantage 2 small applicants who have joined forces in order to go forward
Phil Buckingham
01:21:58
change of circumstances - so second sealed bid required ?
Paul McGrady
01:22:05
@Susan - I think that is right. Fresh for all seems better
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:22:07
I don't think you can assume a JV is innovative. The JV could actually provide for a payment to the parties giving up their applications.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:22:19
Doesn't this come back to a timing issue overall?
Christa Taylor
01:22:23
The issue is the JV partner who gets the AS multiplier
Alexander Schubert
01:22:33
the leg up is that now the JV knows who they are up to (which they didn't before).
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:22:43
So how is that determined?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:22:59
Christa has raised issues with the multiplier on email.
Christa Taylor
01:23:05
Even if its only one - its a race to the AS applicant to get the mulitplier
Justine Chew
01:23:09
For consideration, at least.
Alexander Schubert
01:23:34
Unlikely that TWO members in one contention set qualify for applicant support....
Phil Buckingham
01:23:42
take the multiplier away
Paul McGrady
01:24:04
Sealed bids raise a lot of problems. What were they meant to solve?
Christa Taylor
01:24:25
+1 paul
Steve Chan
01:25:01
“Ascending clock” is the terminology I believe
Susan.Payne
01:25:05
not by lots of us they weren't Jeff
Justine Chew
01:25:06
Me too! @Jeff
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:25:32
Private resolution using private auctions was always on the table.
Martin Sutton
01:25:46
I don’t believe there was overwhelming support for sealed bids Jeff
Paul McGrady
01:25:54
Didn't mean to open up the worm can.
Elaine Pruis
01:26:11
Sealed bids is a compromise position to allow for private auctions
Susan.Payne
01:26:15
exactly Donna, so why have the private auctions now become sealed bid?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:26:48
So for Auctions of Last Resort, you may be correct, but I honestly don't recall.
Jim Prendergast
01:26:54
That is the method the auction expert who briefed the group suggest as the best option for future rounds. Jeff tried to get others to talk to us but they refused.
Paul McGrady
01:27:06
@Jeff - can you clarify in the chat that we are not saying sealed bids are required for private auctions.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:27:11
Some confusion here: We are not dictating anything about how private auctions work
Paul McGrady
01:27:39
Thanks Jeff!
Jeffrey Neuman
01:28:21
Private resolution can be resolved privately, but all details must be disclosed
Justine Chew
01:29:04
Sarah proposed Vickrey auction
Justine Chew
01:30:00
+1 Jeff, no change to sealed bid concept, only to timing of bid.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:30:52
@Jamie, I think that's not a bad option that the JV should pick one of the bids.
Paul McGrady
01:31:04
I think either option works, but I like resubmit better
Justine Chew
01:31:38
+1 Donna, would remove headache too
Jim Prendergast
01:31:49
Yeah - I didn't think we were landing on anything on this call as this was just presented. people need time to review this with the benefit of time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:32:09
noted @Jamie
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:32:29
Correct @Paul just reviewing the new text
Paul McGrady
01:32:59
@CLO, I think you meant Correct @Jim...
Phil Buckingham
01:33:03
a JV doesn’t neccessarily more money on the table for the auction
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:23
Indeed @Paul I must have your @name on auto que ;-)
Justine Chew
01:35:24
@Jeff, also consequences
Justine Chew
01:35:34
of violations
Paul McGrady
01:35:36
@CLO - hahahahha!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:43
:-)
Christa Taylor
01:36:09
Can an applicant withdraw their sealed bid for another reason other than being removed from the regular process i.e. they spent their auction funds and would avoid defaulting on payment?
Christa Taylor
01:37:34
No..not the application just the bid
Paul McGrady
01:38:25
Right.
Jamie Baxter
01:38:34
or accept a private resolution, which avoids revealing the bid
Paul McGrady
01:38:45
Yep
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:39:20
Just noting to the group that if this call does not wrap a little early today several of us including Staff will need to attend the Extraordinary GNSO Council call at the half hour will be leaving around the 20-25 past or so mark
Steve Chan
01:40:04
...Concerns and mitigations
Alexander Schubert
01:40:57
At least it has the early sealed bids (before applicant entities are revealed) - and publication requirements for private resolution. That's much more than in 2012.
Alexander Schubert
01:41:12
So we move in the right direction
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:05
agree with Anne
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:21
it's the only way that things will make sense
Alexander Schubert
01:43:40
If we can have icann auction BATCHES (so that portfolio applicants can't much use auction proceeds for other auctions): that would be better. So after a few months all auctions of unobjected applications - and a second batch later...
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:04
we're in 7 now
Elaine Pruis
01:45:17
+1 Alexander
christopher wilkinson
01:46:00
Note that most of my ‘can’t live withs’ were not discussed.
Paul McGrady
01:47:01
@Alexander, but it takes time to get through Objections, GAC Early Warnings, Evaluations, etc. so that the content sets are stable. That is why accelerated auctions of last resort don't work.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:47:30
Sorry we have to leave for GNSO Council call
christopher wilkinson
01:47:42
@ Alexander - BATCHES +1.
Paul McGrady
01:47:48
Enjoy that GNSO Council call! haha!
Paul McGrady
01:48:05
yep
Alexander Schubert
01:48:10
bye
Julie Bisland
01:48:11
NEXT CALL: Monday, 20 July 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.